REGIONAL COOPERATION IN THE SOUTHERN CAUCASUS – FOR AND AGAINST

Gulshan M. Pashayeva
The second Lekani meeting on regional security issues
organized by Georgian office of Helsinki Citizen Assembly and
supported by Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Borjomi, Georgia

We understand by the geopolitical concept "Southern Caucasus" the region that brings together the three new independent states of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia. In the first ten years of their existence these countries have had the experience of constructing a national state, and in each of them a number of economic reforms have been carried out and a degree of political stability has been achieved.

The reality of the present situation clearly shows that the Southern Caucasus countries are joined together in the concept of a region by dint of their objective geographical position, rather than by other parameters (social, economic, military-political, cultural) that might serve as a basis for tripartite relations, since most of these other parameters are absent.

The main reason for this is the existence of unresolved ethno-political and territorial conflicts in two of the three countries. Violence, ethnic cleansing, a large number of victims, an even larger number of refugees and displaced persons, and a de facto forcible redrawing of borders are the serious consequences of these conflicts. Essentially the Southern Caucasus is now split on the West-East (Turkey-Georgia-Azerbaijan) and North-South (Russia-Armenia-Iran) axes.

In connection with this, we should be aware of a number of external factors with a strong influence on the processes taking place in the countries of the Southern Caucasus:

• the intersection of the frequently conflicting geopolitical and geo-economic interests of the big regional powers – Iran, Turkey and Russia, each of which at various periods in history has been dominant in the Southern Caucasus;
• the contradictory and at times inconsistent policy of Russia in the defence of its national interests in the region, often to the detriment of the interests of the countries of the Southern Caucasus;
• the ineffectiveness of the efforts of international organisations as mediators;
• the strengthening of the influence of the West in the form of the US and EU on the processes taking place in the region, in connection with the exploitation of the energy resources of the Caspian and the prospects for the creation of a West-East international transit corridor.

The various relations of the countries of the region with one another, in particular the conflict between Turkey and Armenia dating back to the events of 1915, the problems between Azerbaijan and Iran in relation to status of the Caspian Sea and the rights of the Azerbaijani diaspora numbering several millions in Northern Iran, the centuries-old rivalry between Turkey and Iran, and Russia’s desire to consolidate via Armenia its military presence in the region constitute yet another incomplete list of difficulties in the way of creating an effective system of security and cooperation in the Southern Caucasus.

In fairness it has to be said that together with the complex geopolitical game, there are increasingly clear signs of a system of pragmatic relations based on economic interests. This refers primarily to the relations between Georgia and Azerbaijan.

The joint membership of Georgia and Azerbaijan in the GUUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan Moldova), the strategic and economic partnership with Azerbaijan in a number of regional projects, and in particular the mutually beneficial cooperation in the building and operation of the Baku-Supsa oil pipeline, have produced an important rapprochement of the interests of the two countries. These relations have a long-term basis in the context of the construction of the main Baku-Tbilisi-Dzheykhan oil pipeline and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline, which are intended to play a major part in securing energy supplies and protecting the independence of the region. Strategic cooperation in this area was consolidated in April 2002 by the Trabzon agreement between Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey, which covered a broad spectrum of matters from the joint fight against terrorism and aggressive separatism to the problem of money-laundering and the protection of export pipelines.

The events of 11 September 2001 acted as a catalyst to American influence in the region. However, taking into account the different relations of the countries of the region with the US (in particular US-Iranian relations), it is difficult to talk about an unequivocal assessment of the American factor in the Southern Caucasus. Only the future will show whether it is another factor for regional stability.

Of course the US and EU have an objective interest in the prompt settlement of the conflicts in the Southern Caucasus, since without political stability there can be no reliable guarantees for the multi-million dollar/euro investments of transnational corporations, nor any implementation of large-scale projects to build a network of pipelines or transport communications. The large deposits of natural gas and oil in the basin of the Caspian Sea and the projects to build oil and gas pipelines, as well as plans to resurrect the system of transport communications along the so-called Great Silk Road, could assist the rapid development of the infrastructure of the region itself as well as the prosperity of people living in the countries of the Southern Caucasus.

Western countries, aware of the practical impossibility of a rapid settlement of the conflicts, are understandably interested in promoting ideas of regional cooperation as a universal means of resolving existing problems in the region.

The "Pact on Stability in the Caucasus", devised in May 2000 by the Brussels-based Centre for European Political Studies (CEPS), is of particular interest for a number of Western projects. This working document, which is a wide-ranging study of the future integration of the Southern Caucasus into the European community, contains a number of ideas relating to the prevention and resolution of conflicts and to regional integration and a system of regional security in the Southern Caucasus.

The authors, having studied the present situation in the Southern Caucasus in detail, have reached the conclusion that use should be made of the existing historical potential of the European community in respect of resolving conflicts and identifying control mechanisms in a multi-ethnic state (for example Belgium, the Southern Tyrol and the Aland Islands). They emphasise the positive role that can be played by European models in respect of the asymmetric distribution of power between the centre and the individual regions of a state, and attempt to model options for settling conflicts in the Southern Caucasus region. A regional security system in this case can be linked to the political resolution of conflicts and the deployment of peacekeeping forces as part of an international institution such as the OSCE.

I would like to stress in connection with this that the Pact should take into account the present situation in the Southern Caucasus. The peoples of the Southern Caucasus are at the stage of the formation of a national consciousness and the construction of a national state, and are still a long way from the integration processes characteristic of the European community. In order to understand their mutual interdependence as important elements in a Southern Caucasus system of regional security and cooperation, they will have to tread the path taken by the Europeans (and which took the Europeans a century to complete). Of course, the processes of globalisation already in progress and help from the international community may speed up this process, but, in our view, we must be realists and be aware of the difficulties and obstacles standing in our way.

Of particular note in the Pact is the importance of tripartite cooperation between Russia, the EU and the US in a southern direction, in the context of the creation of the broad economic axis of the Black Sea-Caucasus-Caspian Sea-Central Asia.

Transport communications must be opened up before these ideas can be implemented, and this is precisely where the interests of many countries coincide. Russia, in particular, is relying on the re-establishment of communications to gain a transport corridor through Georgia to Armenia and through Azerbaijan to Iran. Full-scale regional cooperation will enable Iran to break the de facto political and economic blockade imposed on it by the US, and regional cooperation is of course of the utmost interest to Armenia as another means of consolidating the existing military-political realities in the region.

It is in fact a paradox that the most active participants in regional projects, Azerbaijan and Turkey (which supports Azerbaijan), are openly opposed to any form of full-scale cooperation with Armenia, until there is a full and final settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijan conflict. This the only and most effective, peaceful means Azerbaijan has of protesting against the continuing occupation of Azerbaijani territory by Armenian armed bands.

Thus the position of official Azerbaijan that no development of regional cooperation is possible without a settlement of existing conflicts, which is supported by most of the population of the country, is more in keeping with the existing realities in the region. What then are the prospects for cooperation in the region?

First and foremost all it should be said that at the moment in the Southern Caucasus there is a reasonably efficient system of regional cooperation between representatives of non-governmental organisations, between the media, and between independent experts in fields such as human rights and the environment. The creation of various networks in the humanitarian sphere to carry out joint projects is aimed at a rapprochement of the positions of conflicting communities at the level of human relations, in the hope that new personal contacts and cooperation between individual citizens of these countries will eventually help to bring about peace. The potential of the women’s movement in the countries of the region is also being put to use in these processes. In this respect, the unique UNIFEM regional project "Women for the prevention of conflicts and the creation of peace in the Southern Caucasus", which has being implemented simultaneously in Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia since April 2001, is worthy of mention.

However, the now traditional meetings between representatives of the three countries within the framework of various projects cannot undergo a qualitative transformation, unless they are endowed with a realistic and specific content. There is no doubt that there are many positive aspects of face-to-face meetings and exchanges of opinions, such as changes to or elimination of false information about the opposing side in a conflict, overcoming prejudice, and searching for common interests as opposed to differences. But these phenomena, because they apply only at an individual level, are selective in nature and are not projected to the level of the whole of the opposing community, and the unresolved conflict continues to divide people on both sides of the front line.

Whilst not wishing to belittle the relative usefulness of these activities, they nevertheless have to be considered in tandem with other more substantial measures, without which the value of any kind of human contact aimed at settling a conflict will be of a fragmentary nature. One of the priorities is to give conflicting communities a systematic grounding in the culture of peace, tolerance, the mutual dependence of opposing sides, and the avoidance of compromise.

In communities divided by conflict there are clearly certain general mechanisms, both subjective and objective, that act as a brake on and sometimes even play a negative part in the settlement of a conflict. In order to deal with these mechanisms, society itself and its leaders must be prepared to take a responsible decision. This should not be a decision based solely on yesterday’s or today’s realities. The ultimate aims of the resolution of the conflict should be clearly defined and an assessment made of the pros and cons of a decision on which the future development of the country may depend. On the one hand, this may take the form of activity inside one community, consolidating all responsible forces, irrespective of political views, for the good of the people and the state. On the other hand, one must realise that it is also necessary to work with the opposing side in the conflict. Bilateral negotiations at the level of state leaders, as well as meetings of representatives of all strata of society should be held on a regular basis. Without these contacts it is impossible to determine the priorities of the opposing side, or the level of maturity and willingness of the communities themselves to accept a solution, or what the feasibility of future compromises is.

The concept of mutual compromise is itself the most complex link in the chain of the negotiating process. The following questions have to be answered: What should be conceded? Why is it necessary to do so? Perhaps it is still possible to win back what has been lost, and therefore no concessions need to be made?

Existing declaratory positions are holding the sides back from taking any steps. If one takes into account the fact that force is of an asymmetrical nature, and one of the sides predominates and flaunts it military-political achievements, the "losing" side will not want to accept its defeat. This is a notable contradiction in the process of finding mutually beneficial compromises. Neither the "losing" nor the "winning" side wants to concede anything at this point in time, since this is associated with a "loss of face". But as the experience of protracted conflicts shows, neither side grasps that there are no winners in such conflicts, however tragic this situation may be.

One must also take into account the fact that former historical differences between the countries of the Southern Caucasus and the regional forces surrounding them should be taken into account during a transformation in existing conflicts. In this respect the establishment of a tripartite regional dialogue between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey looks promising. Getting Armenia actively involved in regional projects in return for a change in its position on the questions of evacuating occupied Azerbaijani territory and determining the status of Karabakh is an avenue worth considering. It should be remembered that several years ago, according to media reports, options were discussed for laying an export pipeline through Armenia, as well as proposals for evacuating a number of occupied areas along the Baku-Nakhichevan-Yerevan railway if rail communications between the countries were opened.

I would like to state in conclusion that only a process for elaborating a joint settlement of conflicts, that takes into account the political and economic aspect of cooperation in the region, is capable of producing real results. According to Zartman⁽¹⁾ a situation in which the opposing sides come up against an impasse harmful to both of them is a necessary, although inadequate, condition for the description of a conflict as "ripe for a solution". However, the most difficult thing in this process is the transformation of the positional bargaining between the sides (an attempt to use the asymmetry in the distribution of forces, achieved as a result of various circumstances on the battlefield and during the negotiating process) to a dialogue based on the mutual interests and demands of the opposing sides.

The latter is possible only if the idea of a strong mutual dependence and an understanding that the fate of both of them is closely linked is instilled in the opposing communities. It is hard not to agree with D. Shakhnazaryan⁽²⁾ that "... in accordance with current international realities, it is at the least naive to think that the result of combat operations is a strategic success ... Today the formula "the result of history is the development of a state" predominates. To this could be added only that none of the countries of the Southern Caucasus will be able to achieve this result alone, and that the future of the region lies in mutually beneficial cooperation.

* * *

¹ Zartman I.W. (ed.). Elusive Peace. Negotiating an End to Civil Wars. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1995.
² D. Shakhnazaryan, Armenia – time of choice. News of Central Asia and the Caucasus, No.12-13, 2000.